Only two balls, but Right to Privacy and Freedom of Speech are awfully hard to juggle..
Mine, too, that is why I stick to highly paid, highly trained professionals.
BTW, kudos to you, sir. I just call mine Dangly and Hairy, your names are WAAAAY more clever!
Yes!! That is immediately what I thought of when I saw this article. Beyond the ideology "information wants to be free" vs. "you have no right to violate my privacy", he makes several excellent points based on the pragmatic realities of advancing technology and human nature. He also makes several assertions about various social trends (back in '98)that we can see happening today (USAPATRIOT act), which gives him even more credibility (in my opinion).
I like this idea, and think it would be a very useful project (I would sure use it), BUT
don't forget about non-roll call voting. For those too lazy to click the link, basically, US Congress can cast "secret" votes on issues, as in no one knows who voted for or against. Call me cynical, but I think that if a tool like you suggest saw wide-spread use, and actually started affecting the political landscape, we'd see a lot more voice and standing votes. Of course, that in itself would actually be usefull knowledge as it would indicate Congress' intentions towards we the people.
I must admit, I am extremely curious as to
A) where this phrase comes from (literature? your head?)
B) why you keep this in a safe in your attic for later consumption?
Do you feel love for the dirt under your feet, the morons around you or even the goverment?
yes, I do love the land (i.e., dirt under my feet) around me. It is beautiful, it is majestic, it sustains me in many, many ways.
yes, I do love the morons around me. I think they are morons, I dislike some of their beliefs, and some of their actions, but the vast majority of them are decent, honest, caring folks. At least, they are as decent, as honest, and as caring as I am, if not more so. I love myself quite a bit (as in quantity, not frequency), so it would be a bit unfair for me to hold those around me to a higher standard than I hold myself.
government, well, that ones tricky. I love, admire, and respect the ideals of government for which my country stands. The actual implementation often leaves something to be desired, but then again, so does most everything else in life.
he Bible has another interesting little episode which essentially approves rape...
Actually, my favorite example of bizarre morality in the Bible is a story of Lot (I think it's Lot, I'm not sure and my Bible is packed in a box, so I can't look it up). A mob is chasing a couple of strangers (who happen to be angels in disguise) for the purpose of raping them. Lot comes out and sees what the commotion is. When he finds out what's going on, he says "No, no. Don't rape these men, that is evil. But, hey, I know you are all worked up, and gotta get SOMETHING, so here, have my daughter."
This is an illustration of how GOOD Lot is.
Actually, you do have to do whatever it takes (as long as it is legal and ethical, that is)
Surely lying to a judge and jury is illegal for lawyers. I mean, it is for witnesses, why would lawyers be allowed? I see your point about tools being low quality for certain situations, but high quality in different situations (MySQL is very good for a high traffic, read only web-database system, but I wouldn't bank at a bank that kept my accounts in a MySQL system), but in the vast majority of cases, completely contradicting an earlier position makes me suspicious you were lying one of the times. Saying that it was necessary to win might make you a good lawyer, but it is pretty hard to pretend it makes you a moral (or is it ethical?) person.
No, not really (although I realize it is quite funny). He was a strict Southern Baptist, raised on a tobacco farm in NC in the 30s and 40s. A good man, mostly, but he did have some strange views on things. He used to tell the story about how he couldn't visit Georgia (or maybe SC, I forget which) any more b/c when he went there to deliver a shipment, he would spend time with the daughter of one of the largest tobacco buyers in that state. Well, the buyer caught them dancing (no, not a euphemism, actual dancing) together once, and insisted my grandad had to marry the girl, b/c if decent folk found out... Well, apparently, the girl thought this was a fine idea, and was simply waiting (along with her cousins, brothers, uncles, etc.) for him to come back and marry her. After that, my grandad's brother made all the deliveries to that state.
The funniest part is that his biggest concern about alcohol was that it would entice me to dance w/ women...
Yeah, the chemical reaction is definitely better in small doses:) I'm referring to the physical reaction. Maybe I am more sensitive, but I smoke a cigarette every so often while drinking, and the physical sensation of the smoke going down my throat is uncomfortable. And I can definitely feel reduced breathing capability the next day.
But yeah, I still smoke (occassionaly) b/c of the headrush (plus the stimulation is nice when drinking).
I'm not talking about the "official" stance, I'm simply talking about what the average person's common sense told them. True, the official campaign of "Smoke for your health" surely convinced some people to ignore the evidence of their own senses, but *average people* could certainly tell that smoking was bad for you, based on easily observed phenomena, and not all of them believed gov't and industry media campaigns over their own eyes.
Government promoted marijuana as causing dementia and schizophrenia, but people that actually smoked didn't believe it, b/c it contradicted their experience.
You know smoking wasn't harmful for a long, long time
Maybe WAAAAY back in the day, like when tobacco was first introduced to the white man, they didn't realize smoking was harmful. However, even then, I doubt it. Before tobacco was introduced, people had been smoking opium, cannabis, probably anything they could burn, for quite some time. Maybe the exact effects of tobacco were unknown, but ever since cavemen played musical chairs to stay upwind from the cooking fire, I imagine people have realized that SMOKE in the LUNGS hurts, and things that hurt have for a long time been considered bad.
What you may be thinking of is the fact that for a long time, tobacco was not officially known to be addictive. However, even there, my grandfather, who was a tobacco farmer, used to talk about "casual" vs. "serious" smokers from when he was a kid, back in the 30s or so. "Serious" smokers would come to the farm to try and get raw tobacco leaves b/c they "satisfied the cravings" better. He would talk about how nasty raw tobacco tastes, and tell me not to ever let something take hold of me like that (he also warned me against alcohol and women that liked to dance). This was 20+ years ago.
However, I'll admit smoking is a bit different than cell phone usage. Nobody develops terrible headaches the first few times they use a cell phone, only being able to enjoy it once they get used to it (unlike smoking).
But they continued on to also say opposition to ANY nuclear project was critical.
Yeah, sometimes (most of the time?) passionate self-righteousness precludes any rational thought. I work on the campus of a liberal arts college, and see a lot of PCU-style protesters. A few years ago, NC was looking to build a waste-disposal site for low-level nuclear waste (generally stuff like rubber gloves used in medical procedures involving radiation or x-ray). I was approached by a protest group that wanted me to sign a petition decrying this horrendous environmental affront. I asked them what they proposed should be done with this waste, they said "Stop producing it." I pointed out that a) chemotherapy patients, dental patients, etc. would object to this "solution", and b) this "solution" would do absolutely nothing for the already existing waste.
I'm not sure which was louder, the howls of rage, or the giant sucking sound as my points were hurled into the intellectual vacuum.
Yeah, I also keep the dead tree version in my car for long trips, emergencies (never can tell WHERE you'll wake up after a 4 day coke/liquor binge *), etc. I actually meant I use www.randmcnally.com for online directions, instead of MapQuest, Google, whatever else people use. I was just too lazy to type out the HTML tags, so instead wound up having to type a whole 'nother post to clarify. There is probably a lesson in there somewhere, I'm too lazy to look for it.
vast majority of environmental scientists strangely enough are environmentalists...
I am not sure why that seems strange to you, especially since you seem to be implying that it is vaguely sinister. An environmentalist is someone who is concerned about the environment, specifically, humans' effect on the environment. This strikes me as the most likely person to study the environment. Alternately, what kind of environmental scientist could study the environment and not really care about it, not be an environmentalist? Do you expect most marine biologist to be impartial or passionate towards marine biology?
I should clarify, that one of the few instances the agressor does initiate force is in cases such as the Naitive Americans, where the settlers forced them to leave, b/c they wanted to live there.
I was thinking more in terms of the article, where the objection would be to you mining MY asteroid, thus violating my property rights.
Actually, it (most often) IS an initiation of force against another human. The agressor (thief, whatever) isn't necessarily initiating force against the defender. He just wants the property. If you let him have it, there is no altercation. The conflict comes about b/c you object to his assumption of "your" property, and try to prevent it.
It is almost always the defender that starts the war. The agressor doesn't want war, he wants land, property, you to leave, etc. If you give him what he wants w/o resistance, there is no conflict.
Slashdot Mirror
Only two balls, but Right to Privacy and Freedom of Speech are awfully hard to juggle..
Mine, too, that is why I stick to highly paid, highly trained professionals.
BTW, kudos to you, sir. I just call mine Dangly and Hairy, your names are WAAAAY more clever!
Yes!! That is immediately what I thought of when I saw this article. Beyond the ideology "information wants to be free" vs. "you have no right to violate my privacy", he makes several excellent points based on the pragmatic realities of advancing technology and human nature. He also makes several assertions about various social trends (back in '98)that we can see happening today (USAPATRIOT act), which gives him even more credibility (in my opinion).
I like this idea, and think it would be a very useful project (I would sure use it), BUT
don't forget about non-roll call voting. For those too lazy to click the link, basically, US Congress can cast "secret" votes on issues, as in no one knows who voted for or against. Call me cynical, but I think that if a tool like you suggest saw wide-spread use, and actually started affecting the political landscape, we'd see a lot more voice and standing votes. Of course, that in itself would actually be usefull knowledge as it would indicate Congress' intentions towards we the people.
go someplace else for this kind of news.
/. for the news?! I come for the witty, sparkling conversation held amongst intelligent, mature technophiles.
Who comes to
I must admit, I am extremely curious as to
A) where this phrase comes from (literature? your head?)
B) why you keep this in a safe in your attic for later consumption?
Do you feel love for the dirt under your feet, the morons around you or even the goverment?
yes, I do love the land (i.e., dirt under my feet) around me. It is beautiful, it is majestic, it sustains me in many, many ways.
yes, I do love the morons around me. I think they are morons, I dislike some of their beliefs, and some of their actions, but the vast majority of them are decent, honest, caring folks. At least, they are as decent, as honest, and as caring as I am, if not more so. I love myself quite a bit (as in quantity, not frequency), so it would be a bit unfair for me to hold those around me to a higher standard than I hold myself.
government, well, that ones tricky. I love, admire, and respect the ideals of government for which my country stands. The actual implementation often leaves something to be desired, but then again, so does most everything else in life.
he Bible has another interesting little episode which essentially approves rape...
Actually, my favorite example of bizarre morality in the Bible is a story of Lot (I think it's Lot, I'm not sure and my Bible is packed in a box, so I can't look it up). A mob is chasing a couple of strangers (who happen to be angels in disguise) for the purpose of raping them. Lot comes out and sees what the commotion is. When he finds out what's going on, he says "No, no. Don't rape these men, that is evil. But, hey, I know you are all worked up, and gotta get SOMETHING, so here, have my daughter."
This is an illustration of how GOOD Lot is.
Actually, you do have to do whatever it takes (as long as it is legal and ethical, that is)
Surely lying to a judge and jury is illegal for lawyers. I mean, it is for witnesses, why would lawyers be allowed? I see your point about tools being low quality for certain situations, but high quality in different situations (MySQL is very good for a high traffic, read only web-database system, but I wouldn't bank at a bank that kept my accounts in a MySQL system), but in the vast majority of cases, completely contradicting an earlier position makes me suspicious you were lying one of the times. Saying that it was necessary to win might make you a good lawyer, but it is pretty hard to pretend it makes you a moral (or is it ethical?) person.
Was that a joke?
No, not really (although I realize it is quite funny). He was a strict Southern Baptist, raised on a tobacco farm in NC in the 30s and 40s. A good man, mostly, but he did have some strange views on things. He used to tell the story about how he couldn't visit Georgia (or maybe SC, I forget which) any more b/c when he went there to deliver a shipment, he would spend time with the daughter of one of the largest tobacco buyers in that state. Well, the buyer caught them dancing (no, not a euphemism, actual dancing) together once, and insisted my grandad had to marry the girl, b/c if decent folk found out... Well, apparently, the girl thought this was a fine idea, and was simply waiting (along with her cousins, brothers, uncles, etc.) for him to come back and marry her. After that, my grandad's brother made all the deliveries to that state.
The funniest part is that his biggest concern about alcohol was that it would entice me to dance w/ women...
Yeah, the chemical reaction is definitely better in small doses :) I'm referring to the physical reaction. Maybe I am more sensitive, but I smoke a cigarette every so often while drinking, and the physical sensation of the smoke going down my throat is uncomfortable. And I can definitely feel reduced breathing capability the next day.
But yeah, I still smoke (occassionaly) b/c of the headrush (plus the stimulation is nice when drinking).
I'm not talking about the "official" stance, I'm simply talking about what the average person's common sense told them. True, the official campaign of "Smoke for your health" surely convinced some people to ignore the evidence of their own senses, but *average people* could certainly tell that smoking was bad for you, based on easily observed phenomena, and not all of them believed gov't and industry media campaigns over their own eyes.
Government promoted marijuana as causing dementia and schizophrenia, but people that actually smoked didn't believe it, b/c it contradicted their experience.
You know smoking wasn't harmful for a long, long time
Maybe WAAAAY back in the day, like when tobacco was first introduced to the white man, they didn't realize smoking was harmful. However, even then, I doubt it. Before tobacco was introduced, people had been smoking opium, cannabis, probably anything they could burn, for quite some time. Maybe the exact effects of tobacco were unknown, but ever since cavemen played musical chairs to stay upwind from the cooking fire, I imagine people have realized that SMOKE in the LUNGS hurts, and things that hurt have for a long time been considered bad. What you may be thinking of is the fact that for a long time, tobacco was not officially known to be addictive. However, even there, my grandfather, who was a tobacco farmer, used to talk about "casual" vs. "serious" smokers from when he was a kid, back in the 30s or so. "Serious" smokers would come to the farm to try and get raw tobacco leaves b/c they "satisfied the cravings" better. He would talk about how nasty raw tobacco tastes, and tell me not to ever let something take hold of me like that (he also warned me against alcohol and women that liked to dance). This was 20+ years ago.
However, I'll admit smoking is a bit different than cell phone usage. Nobody develops terrible headaches the first few times they use a cell phone, only being able to enjoy it once they get used to it (unlike smoking).
But they continued on to also say opposition to ANY nuclear project was critical.
Yeah, sometimes (most of the time?) passionate self-righteousness precludes any rational thought. I work on the campus of a liberal arts college, and see a lot of PCU-style protesters. A few years ago, NC was looking to build a waste-disposal site for low-level nuclear waste (generally stuff like rubber gloves used in medical procedures involving radiation or x-ray). I was approached by a protest group that wanted me to sign a petition decrying this horrendous environmental affront. I asked them what they proposed should be done with this waste, they said "Stop producing it." I pointed out that a) chemotherapy patients, dental patients, etc. would object to this "solution", and b) this "solution" would do absolutely nothing for the already existing waste.
I'm not sure which was louder, the howls of rage, or the giant sucking sound as my points were hurled into the intellectual vacuum.
That sucks. I only use it for the driving directions, which work just fine in FireFox. I guess they are still updating their site.
Yeah, I also keep the dead tree version in my car for long trips, emergencies (never can tell WHERE you'll wake up after a 4 day coke/liquor binge *), etc. I actually meant I use www.randmcnally.com for online directions, instead of MapQuest, Google, whatever else people use. I was just too lazy to type out the HTML tags, so instead wound up having to type a whole 'nother post to clarify. There is probably a lesson in there somewhere, I'm too lazy to look for it.
/.
* my mom does not read
I use Rand-McNally, MapQuest has (literally) run me in circles too many times before.
vast majority of environmental scientists strangely enough are environmentalists... I am not sure why that seems strange to you, especially since you seem to be implying that it is vaguely sinister. An environmentalist is someone who is concerned about the environment, specifically, humans' effect on the environment. This strikes me as the most likely person to study the environment. Alternately, what kind of environmental scientist could study the environment and not really care about it, not be an environmentalist? Do you expect most marine biologist to be impartial or passionate towards marine biology?
Which party has the most powerful black man in the world? (Clarence Thomas)
I assume you meant country?
I should clarify, that one of the few instances the agressor does initiate force is in cases such as the Naitive Americans, where the settlers forced them to leave, b/c they wanted to live there. I was thinking more in terms of the article, where the objection would be to you mining MY asteroid, thus violating my property rights.
Actually, it (most often) IS an initiation of force against another human. The agressor (thief, whatever) isn't necessarily initiating force against the defender. He just wants the property. If you let him have it, there is no altercation. The conflict comes about b/c you object to his assumption of "your" property, and try to prevent it. It is almost always the defender that starts the war. The agressor doesn't want war, he wants land, property, you to leave, etc. If you give him what he wants w/o resistance, there is no conflict.
Obviously, the worship of crows. Good christians can be forgiven for being lazy, useless bums, but those damn pagans don't even believe in God!
I wonder if these two actually drove around the 5 block circle that second time it appeared in my directions, or just logged it as "known path"?